Dinosaurus!

Let's get this out of the way early.  Released in 1960 most likely to drive-ins and double features, Dinosaurus! is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Remember how I've mentioned that a bad movie can be good because it knows it is a bad movie?  Yeah, it's like that except this is a genuinely awful movie.  Truly awful.  I say this because the rating is going to throw people off.  I give a lot of movies that are much better than this flick average ratings.  Dinosaurus! on the other hand's going to get a positive rating. It's that bad. Awful, horrific, painful to watch at times. And that's why I loved it.

Made for about $25 or so, this is a low-budget B-movie that never strives to be anything else.  Actually, the budget was an estimated $450,000. Now what that money went toward, I just don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.  It has it all in terms of badness.  The premise is one that countless other bad sci-fi movies have used, but that's nothing. The script is laughable, the acting even worse, and the special effects....well, calling them special effects is an insult to other movies that try to actually use special effects. This probably won't be the most well-rounded review I've had. I'm seeing just a list of funny moments that cracked me up so enjoy.

Working to clear a harbor off a Caribbean island, construction crew workers Bart (Ward Ramsey) and Chuck (Paul Lukather) unearth two fossilized, perfectly preserved dinosaurs in the water, one a T-Rex, the other a brontosaurus. What they don't see is that the island head honcho and all-around A-hole, Hacker (Fred Engelberg), also deserves a frozen caveman and brings him ashore. The creatures are left under guard -- by the island wino at that -- overnight and the island life goes back to normal...briefly.  Supposedly dead, the creatures wake up and begin to tramp all over the island. With no way off the island and no communication available to call for help, Bart and Chuck must figure some way to save the island's inhabitants before these two dinosaurs wreak havoc.

First sign this was going to be interesting to watch?  Reading the synopsis and cast listing at TCM's website, I didn't recognize a single name.  Not one.  The acting is atrocious.  Ramsey's Bart is the stoic hero, always at the forefront of some awful attempts to save the island. Lukather's Chuck is the sidekick because all heroes need a sidekick, right?  Engelberg is hilarious as the villainous Hacker, sneering and growling throughout.  There's also the requisite love interest, Betty (Kristina Hanson), dressed like she's going to a ball, 12-year old actor Alan Roberts as Julio, one of the worst child actors I've ever seen, Dumpy (Wayne C. Treadway), the bumbling, chubby doofus around for comic relief, Luci Blaine as the sexy minority, Chica, Mousey (Howard Dayton) and Jasper (Jack Younger), the dimwitted henchmen, and of course, Gregg Martell as the Neanderthal.  More on that to come.

Acting in a bad B-movie? Let's get to the fun stuff!  If anyone ever thought Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion dinosaurs/creatures were cheesy, this would be the movie to show them that Harryhausen was a master of his craft.  The dinosaurs go two ways here.  One, miniatures shot in extreme close-up with their mouths moving occasionally and roaring dubbed in later.  Two, when required to move across the screen they look like they're walking on a fast-moving treadmill.  Even better? Little Julio and his Neanderthal friend end up riding the brontosaurus. How would you go about managing that? Put little action figures on the dinosaur model and go to town.  The best is saved for last though when Bart goes mano-a-mano against the T-Rex....wait for it....in a steamshovel crane. The bored looking background players make it extra special.  Maybe the greatest fight in the history of movies.  I'm just saying.

The bad dinosaur models on their own wouldn't be enough to cripple a movie.  More needs to happen.  Most of this movie was shot on a studio set with a few quick field trips to the outdoors (very quick trips) before retreating indoors.  The rest the movie is a mix of green screen shots, second unit shooting, and the cast running around a set that would have made Gilligan's Island look realistic. The green screen shots are the best. The cast stands far too close to the camera, and off behind them in blurry footage are fleeing villagers.  Cut to a long shot of random extras walking around to safety, and then back to those scary dinosaurs.  You take for granted sometimes the professionalism involved in making a genuinely good movie. This flick will certainly remind you.

Now all that said, a truly bad movie has that something else, that something you just can't fake.  It's genuine badness, moments that have you roaring in laughter at a delivered line or an amateurish effect. As I'm watching the movie, I'm trying to keep a tally in my head of all Dinosaurus!'s great moments, but I quickly lost track. Here's a few goodies. Julio -- apparently a dinosaur expert because he reads cereal boxes -- quickly takes on the brontosaurus as his friend and gets quite defensive about it. When the T-Rex attacks his new friend, he throws rocks at him. Bart and Dumpy arrive on the scene as they fight, Bart observing with a chuckle 'Front row seats, huh?!?' Oh Lord, I laughed.

What else, what else? Julio also befriends the Neanderthal, teaching him how to make a snack. The little kid's dialogue is so stiff, so unnatural that the scene is even worse than it sounds.  Later, Betty tries to knock the Neanderthal out because obviously he's oggling her and up to no good.  Then in the finale, the Neanderthal -- probably the most sympathetic character in the whole movie -- ends up getting killed saving the rest of these idiots from a cave-in.  A destroyed Julio asks why he had to die.  Bart (summoning his best Mr. Brady impression) explains that the caveman's time was gone in a world he wasn't familiar with. Julio -- seconds before on the brink of suicide -- says that world sounds awesome!  Yeah, death! Then there's the ending when 'The End' pops up, followed by a question mark.  Oh, no, is it the end?!? Are there more dinosaurs out there?

Good news for those interested in seeing this amazingly bad movie.  It's available to watch on Youtube in its entirety, starting HERE with Part 1 of  9.  You most likely will be disappointed, but that is all the fun. With all the good movies out there, you've got to watch some bad ones now and again.  And don't be confused, this is one of the worst.

Dinosaurus!<---trailer (1960): ***/****

Smokey and the Bandit

Some movies just sound good. With a movie based off Shakespeare or Tolstoy or a Jane Eyre novel, you're going to get a supremely well-written and most likely well-acted movie. Then there's the polar opposite. You know you're going to have fun watching this movie. Burt Reynolds driving a badass car through the South with every sheriff and police officer around chasing him? Count...me...in.  That's 1977's Smokey and the Bandit.

This is a movie I'd never even seen a minute of before. Heard of it, knew what it was about, yes. Seen it? Not even a little bit.  I've always been a fan of Burt Reynolds, and this is probably his most well-known movie right up there with the original The Longest Yard. The 1970s were Reynolds' decade as he was one of if not the most popular movie stars around. Think of George Clooney and Brad Pitt rolled into one. This is him at its best, a little slice of Americana that is the definition of a popcorn movie.

A reputation for being able to pull off the impossible, a trucker named Bandit (Reynolds) has taken on an impossible dare that no one has ever pulled off. Leaving from Georgia, he has to drive to Texarkana, Texas, pick up 400 cases of Coors beer and race back to Georgia, all in 28 hours. The only problem? Transporting Coors beer east of the Mississippi is bootlegging. Driving as a blocker in a Pontiac TransAm to clear the way, Bandit recruits old buddy and fellow trucker, Snowman (country singer Jerry Reed), to drive an 18-wheeler full of the beer. Picking up the beer proves to be the easy part, but on the return trip, Bandit picks up Carrie (Sally Field), a woman on the side of the road in a wedding gown. He thinks nothing of it, but almost immediatey, a Texas sheriff, Buford T. Justice (Jackie Gleason) is on his tail. With time running out, can Bandit and Snowman make it back to Georgia?

On the Making Of documentary on the DVD, Reynolds says he told stuntman-turned-director Hal Needham that the script (which Needham had helped write) was the worst thing he'd ever read...and that he'd do the movie. Reynolds later states that they improvised a lot of the banter along the way. And you know what? It doesn't matter that the script is lousy because the story is nonexistent. The driving mission across the South is laid out early, and from there on in it's one big chase full of fast cars, idiotic police, and some memorable country ballads. Unpretentious and fun, this movie never aspires to be anything other than a movie that is a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Reynolds says it's the perfect rainy weekend afternoon movie, and I can't really disagree.

The best part of the movie is Reynolds. I can't say it is a performance because you get the feel that Reynolds is just playing a bootlegging version of himself. Bandit is funny, smooth, a great driver, a living legend, a ladies man, cocky in his abilities, and through it all, you like him. Reynolds just has a knack for being incredibly likable in almost every role he plays. He has some great one-liners throughout the movie, has a great banter down with Reed's Snowman over the C.B. radio, and looks to be having a ton of fun actually making the movie. Escaping from a pursuing patrol car, Bandit hides behind a building and as he crawls away, turns to the camera and smiles. It's that Burt Reynolds smile. It's completely ridiculous and out of place, but it's perfect. Breaking the fourth wall? You're having too much fun to care.

While this is obviously Reynolds' movie, the three supporting parts are just as important, and none of them disappoint. A Family Guy joke has some fun with Sally Field's casting as the "hot girl," but Fields has a good on-screen chemistry with Reynolds. That's a good thing considering most of their time together is spent in a cramped TransAm. You'd never know that Reed was a singer first and an actor second, but he's just a ball of energy as Cledus -- CB tag 'Snowman' -- Bandit's long-time partner in crime.  And then there's Hollywood legend Jackie Gleason, hamming it up like there's no tomorrow and enjoying every minute of it. He has too many quality one-liners to even repeat here and is so over the top and ridiculous that is character is the perfect fit for this flick.

But basically above all the fun the cast has and the great one-liners are the cars, the chasing and the racing. A long-time stuntman before he turned to directing, Needham has an eye for action, and the chase sequences are a definite high point of the movie featuring some truly impressive (and not always intentional) stunts. There are plenty of driving adventures, and then throw in Reed's soundtrack to make a truly enjoyable movie. They're country ballads -- with a little quicker tempo -- that should be really bad but end up working. There is Eastbound and Down (<----listen there), The Bandit, and The Legend. It's all the little things that add up to make this movie as much fun as it is. It could be judged as a guilty pleasure, but I think it is just a genuinely good, exciting, action-packed and funny movie.

Smokey and the Bandit <---trailer (1977): ***/****

Captain Nemo and the Underwater City

First introduced to the world in Jules Verne's classic novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Captain Nemo is one of those great mysterious characters in literature.  In films and television, he's been portrayed by James Mason, Herbert Lom, Omar Sharif, Michael Caine, Patrick Stewart and in 1969's Captain Nemo and the Underwater City, he is played by Robert Ryan. The character as Verne intended it is a mysterious one to begin with, but in basically all of the castings, the character is badly (sometimes very badly) miscast.  As much as I love Robert Ryan, this is one epic case of miscasting.

One of Hollywood's more underrated actors, Ryan was a legend, starring in countless classics, able to play both good and bad alike. He specialized in torn tough guys, men with checkered pasts and fiery emotions. He's one of my favorites, but having him playing Nemo was just a bad idea.  For starters, there's that whole physical resemblance thing. Nemo is the son of an Indian Raja, and Ryan is very, very American-looking. None of this is meant to rip on Ryan as an actor. Far from it, mostly because this is an awful movie, and Ryan's casting is just one of many huge holes this movie has.

A ship sailing off the coast of England late in 1864 sinks, the passengers desperately trying to cling to wreckage in the rough waters. A handful of survivors, including a United States senator, Robert Fraser (Chuck Connors), are rescued by several scuba divers under the water. They're brought on-board the Nautilus, the submarine of the mysterious and highly intelligent, Captain Nemo (Ryan). Glad to be alive but confused as to Nemo's intentions, Fraser and Co. go along with the captain as he returns to an immense underwater city he's constructed on the ocean floor.  Nemo insists that no one ever leaves the city, no one returning to the cruel, hypocritical world that they've left behind. Is this life so bad though? Fraser struggles with the decision, going back and forth on what to do.

I was mostly drawn to this movie -- which I'd never even heard of before seeing it at TCM's schedule -- because of the cast, but it took about 10 minutes for me to figure out this wasn't going to be a very good movie.  Some money was clearly spent on the production, but director James Hill just doesn't know what he's doing here. This lavish underwater city looks ridiculous, the costumes and sets are some weird mix of futuristic and bad late 1960s style, and the script is so all over the place that the movie never gets into any rhythm.  That enough for you? It's not campy enough to be so bad it's good, and it is so dull at times that you can't just go along for the ride.

No saving grace here from the cast, but I don't think it is their fault.  It's hard to believe Ryan starred in The Wild Bunch the same year he did 'Nemo.' As great as he was in that movie, he's equally bad here, phoning in his performance. Connors too is miscast as the U.S. Senator on some highly important, secret and dangerous mission for the U.S. government. His hair is about 12 feet high, and he just doesn't work as a Senator. There's also Nanette Newman as Helena, one of the survivors and a single mother, the beautiful Luciana Paluzzi as Mala, a school teacher in Nemo's city, John Turner as Joab, Nemo's right-hand man, Bill Fraser and Kenneth Connors as the gold-hungry Swallow brothers, and Allan Cuthbertson as Lomax, a claustrophobic survivor looking for any way out of this paradise city.

What works against the cast (because there is talent here) is a story and a script that just doesn't know what it wants to do or where to go. A long 10-minute sequence has Nemo giving the survivors a scuba-tour of his city, pointing out fish and fauna in his best Jacques Cousteau impression. Nemo and Helena have a budding relationship as the mysterious captain possibly looks for a wife. The Swallow brothers spent most of their time looking for gold mined from the ocean floor, planning how to escape with as much as they can. Fraser falls for Mala and debates staying with her, also watching out for Joab who sees the senator as competition. There's both too much going on and not enough. I suppose none of these storylines are enough to carry a movie on their own so instead we get tidbits of all of these less than interesting stories.

Mostly though with this movie I was just bored. A movie can be really bad, but as long as it is somewhat entertaining I'll go along for the ride.  Not a long movie at just 105 minutes, I found myself fast-forwarding through basically every underwater sequence. The miniatures of Nemo's city and submarine are pretty poorly handled, and the submarine chase in the finale should have been so much cooler. Instead, the movie limps over the finish line.  Bad, bad and bad. Steer clear.

Captain Nemo and the Underwater City <---trailer (1969): */****

The Pirates of Blood River

Because I don't typically review a lot of horror movies here at Just Hit Play, the horror/thriller genre sometimes gets the short end of the stick, and more specifically certain actors.  Whether you know him by name, it's basically a sure thing that you've seen a movie starring British actor Christopher Lee. At almost 90 years old, Lee has been in almost 200 movies all told, many of them horror and thrillers from Hammer studios in the 1960s and 1970s.  He is synonymous with old school British horror movies, but in his Hammer films, there were some oddities, including 1962's The Pirates of Blood River.

Thanks to the Pirates of the Caribbean movies over the last decade or so, pirates in general have had a bit of rebirth in pop culture recently.  No doubt a lot of that can be attributed to Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, a lovable scab of a pirate who even as he commits all these despicable acts still finds a way to be endearing in his greed, stupidity and general cluelessness.  Long story short? Pirates were just plain old nasty folks, killing, pillaging and raping wherever they went. 'Blood River' is certainly in that boat, portraying pirates in a negative light in an adventure story that is just a lot of fun.

It's sometime in the early 18th Century on the Isle of Devon, and in a small community of Huguenots, Jonathan Standing (Kerwin Matthews) is in trouble. Accused of having an affair with a married man's wife, Jonathan is sentenced by his own father to 15 years working in the penal colony. He goes, working several months before pulling off a dangerous escape. Fighting his way through the jungle, he's rescued by a crew of pirates led by a Frenchman, Captain LaRoche (Lee), who cuts a deal for Jonathan to lead him to the village. The pirate captain says he's looking for a resting spot for his ship and crew, but Jonathan quickly figures out otherwise. LaRoche is looking for treasure, and he's convinced there's hidden riches waiting for him. With help from an old friend, Henry (Glenn Corbett), Jonathan does everything he can to rescue his people.  

After finishing this movie, I somewhat stupidly started investigating some.  Where was this Isle of Devon? Who were these Huguenots?  Is there any truth to this pirate story, any basis in fact? Basically it was all wasted time.  As near as I can figure, there's no Isle of Devon, the Huguenots were a real people, and there was no basis at all for this premise. This island appears to be somewhere in the Caribbean, maybe somewhere off of Central or South America?  Who knows though, it's never said and it's not really that important. The point is that the movie doesn't need any of that background. It doesn't matter where this island is or who these people are. Jonathan's folks are the good guys, and Lee's pirates are the oh so bad guys.  Enough said, sit back and enjoy the flick.

There is something appealing about the films that came out of the Hammer Studios that is hard to explain. The stories have a small scale to them, but never feel like low-budget features.  A simplicity to the story is always nice as is the case here, good guys vs. bad guys with no real shade of gray.  It's never trying to deliver a message. It's a fun movie with lots of action, gunfights and sword play.  A win-win combination if there ever was one.  Director John Gilling actually never left England to film this movie which is impressive because I had the sense to think he filmed in some sort of Caribbean/jungle location. The pirates are all duded up, the Huguenot community looks like pilgrims, and there's enough action to keep everyone involved and entertained.

The casting is interesting, and in a positive way for the most part. Matthews is the heroic lead given a chance to redeem himself, but Corbett takes some of his screentime as friend and sidekick Henry.  I guess Jonathan needed some help dispatching the pirates so cue Henry, and away we go.  Lee not surprisingly steals his scenes as LaRoche, the smooth, above-it-all pirate captain who always knows how far he can push his men and still get results.  Lee's LaRoche does look ridiculous in his silk shirt, eye patch and tight black pants, but it's just one more weird oddity that adds up. Marla Landi plays Bess, Jonathan's sister, while Andrew Keir has a good part as Jason Standing, Jonathan's stubborn, strong-willed father. LaRoche's pirates include a young Oliver Reed, Peter Arne as Hench, LaRoche's right-hand man, and Michael Ripper as Mac, a possibly mutinous, back-stabbing pirate. 

Looking back over what I've written, I'm seeing that I haven't gone into much detail about the film.  I think it would be a case of over-analyzing a movie that just doesn't call for it.  Is this a great movie? No, not even close. What it is though is an exciting historical action flick from a studio that knew how to appeal to the wants and likes of an audience. From the credits to the final scene, I very much enjoyed Pirate's 87-minute running time. Underrated, exciting, and with some interesting casting. A weird one, but a good one. There are three extended clips available at Youtube, but there's no real rhyme or reason to them so I'm not going to link to them.

The Pirates of Blood River <---trailer (1962): ***/****

The Kingdom

Almost ten years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it can still be difficult to watch anything even remotely tied to the attacks. Actual footage of the planes flying into the World Trade Centers are still surreal to me because it is hard to fathom anything like that ever happened. I've mentioned before in reviews that movies in any way associated with the conflicts since in Iraq and Afghanistan have struggled, even movies based in the U.S. just involving the people involved. Maybe the wound is still too fresh, and who knows when -- if ever-- these movie will be easier to watch.

Even knowing how difficult these movies can be to watch, it is a shame that they have struggled to find audiences.  Many of them are very good to great movies.  The Hurt Locker is an obvious one, but there are countless others, including 2007's The Kingdom. I think it is a film that works better as a straight action movie than a current issues movie. Any "message movie" released since 2011 is going to sound downright preachy, and I was glad to see at IMDB's Message Boards that a fair share of viewers felt like they were watching a propaganda movie.  Up to you to decide for yourself though in that regard.

In an American compound in Saudi Arabia, over 100 people are killed and several more hundred wounded during a two-pronged terrorist attack.  Back in the U.S., FBI Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) is frustrated with the lack of forward movement being taken by the government to investigate the attacks. He pulls some strings within the Saudi government and gets an investigation team headed overseas, Fleury at the head of the group. From the start though, Fleury's four-man team is met with roadblock after roadblock. Saudi officials -- including lead officer Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) -- can only offer token assistance, regardless of how they feel about the attacks and the loss of life. Fed up with his limited timetable and little results, Fleury starts to push back, wanting to desperately catch the men responsible for the attack.

For some reason I'm struggling to put into words, there's something wrong with this movie. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't like it as much as I thought I would either. It's more than a little formulaic in a paint-by-numbers police procedural sort of way. The message (if it was intended this way) is somewhat heavy-handed and does come across as blatant propaganda at times.  The thing that bothered me most though was the simplicity of the whole thing. These four FBI agents basically track down the most sought after terrorist in the world in the matter of a few hours once their handcuffs are removed by limitations and local police procedure. Really? That's it? Yes, I realize this is a movie and not reality, but it is all too straightforward.

Netflix thought I would love this movie, no doubt because I've highly rated other similar men/team on a mission movies. The cast was a big drawing point for me, but in its execution it was somewhat disappointing.  Foxx has come a long way from his days on The Jamie Foxx Show, proving again he's capable of leading a solid cast in a Hollywood big budget picture. Also impressing is Chris Cooper as Grant Sykes, a bomb technician and high explosives expert. He's that wily veteran who's always ready with some smart ass comment. Sykes is old school and doesn't care if he pisses you off as long as he gets the job done. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner though I felt like they were miscast. Bateman plays Adam Leavitt, an intelligence analyst, while Garner is Janet Mayes, a forensic examiner. Neither actor is given a lot to do with their character, but they felt entirely out of place to me in this movie.

The best performance though hands down goes to Barhom as Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, the Saudi police officer working almost as the team's liaison during their investigation. Having seen what the terrorists can and will do in his country to innocent people, Al Ghazi is fed up with the system, and generally being hamstrung by policy and procedure that limit his actions.  The chemistry Bahrom has with Foxx is top-notch, these two men with completely different backgrounds working together, finding out they're not so different after all.  Their scenes together crackle, some great dialogue back and forth about their ideals, principles and motivations.  This Saudi character humanizes the movie in a way that surprised me. Other small supporting parts go to Ali Suliman as Haytham, Al Ghazi's right hand man, Jeremy Piven as the State Dept. official just trying to get the team out of country safely, Kyle Chandler as an FBI agent, Richard Jenkins as the head of the FBI, Tim McGraw, and Danny Huston. 

Where the first 75 minutes or so dawdles along at times, the pacing picks up to a frenetic pace in the final 35 minutes. One of the team is kidnapped in a high-speed attack on a highway, leaving the other three and the two Saudi police officers to pursue the kidnappers into the city. We're talking car chase followed by a rip-roaring shoot-out with a lot of firepower and a cool hand-to-hand combat scene.  The ending itself offers a bit of a surprise too, a happy ending with a 'P.S.'  I won't spoil it here, but it's a realistic ending. For all the victories that may be achieved in this war, there will always be another fight.  It is an eerie ending, a frustrating finale.

Director Peter Berg is one of the more underrated directors out there, and he doesn't disappoint here.  On the DVD commentary, he mentions that an ending from one of the early drafts of the script called for a whopper of a twist. As they leave, the whole team is killed in another terrorist bombing.  The ending as is now is pretty solid, one that doesn't need that extra shock value.  That's what the finale would have been; a shocker if Berg went with the alternate. This was a good movie that could have been better, and one that is saved by the power of its ending.  Better when it focuses on being an action movie than a message movie.

The Kingdom <---trailer (2007): ***/****

The Adjustment Bureau

You forget your keys somewhere and are therefore a couple minutes late to wherever you were going. Driving to work, you take a different route and as a result avoid a horrific car accident. You take one road instead of another, and some how, some way, cancer is cured. Free will. Predestination. Are we supposed to do something in our lives or is it up to us? Do we control our own fate? It's a question based in personal beliefs, convictions, principles, religion, and so much more.

In an age of mindless action movies and thrillers, I'm glad to see movies like 2011's The Adjustment Bureau. It is based off a short story titled Adjustment Team that was originally published in 1954 by science fiction master Philip K. Dick. This is an atypical mainstream movie. It is a thriller, but one without gunplay, explosions and random nudity. For the most part, it is a smart thriller. It is unique and at times thought-provoking in its discussion of free will and destiny. No doubt it will divide people, and the ending certainly leaves something to be desired, but taken on the whole it is a good movie.

A politician on the rise in the state of New York, David Norris (Matt Damon) is on the fast track to bigger and better things. He has risen up from a checkered background as a kid to become the youngest Congressman ever, and now stands poised to become a U.S. Senator. For David though, he has gone off his supposed life plan when he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a beautiful young dancer with whom he clicks with immediately. David was not supposed to meet Elise because his interactions with her will divert him from his supposed path. When he sees this going on -- mysterious men in suits and hats altering his life and those around him -- David doesn't believe what he sees. It's just too ludicrous, too out of this world. These men will stop at nothing though to get David back on his right path.

The idea behind the Adjustment Bureau -- the actual team of men altering people's lives, not the actual movie -- is one of the most original, unique concepts I can think of in any cultural form; film, television, literature.  What makes it work is that it is never spelled out exactly what's going on. The Bureau is headed by someone called the Chairman who has these agents who look after people, making sure they stay on their paths and avoiding detours. Are they guardian angels? Are they human at all?  They aren't killers or murderers, and for the most part their methods are peaceful if obviously a bit invasive.  The agents have some sort of other-worldly ability and face certain limitations. All things considered though, they get people to do what they should in life, often making them forsake (unknowingly) what they want to do or at least think they want to do.

This movie from director George Nolfi (making his directorial debut) reminded me of last summer's huge hit Inception. It is smart, well-written, and thought-provoking. Criticize it for whatever you want, but I thought at its best it shows that you can make a smart movie without resorting to lowest common denominators. Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips -- who I don't always agree with -- made a great point in his review. There are no guns, no explosions, nothing BIG in this movie. It is personal and emotional, letting the drama we're watching on-screen fill in for any loss of pyrotechnics. I'm not wording this as nicely, smoothly or efficiently as I'd like to here so hopefully I'm getting my message across.

On screen relationships can make or break a movie, simple as that. For 'Bureau,' Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are a match made in heaven. Their chemistry in every single scene is tangible. You feel this connection between these two people.  The dilemma here is that their characters are not supposed to be together in any way. Damon's David is supposed to do huge things that won't happen if he stays with Blunt's Elise who similarly will see her hopes and dreams dashed if she stays with him. Thrillers so often lack any heart, any real reason for us to support or root for characters. That's definitely not the case here.  And as it goes bringing up interesting questions, what is more important? Living up to your potential, your supposed plan? Or should you be happy with someone you love?  It is a decision so many have to make at some point in their life. Any criticism I have with this movie (the big one's coming up in the next paragraph), Damon and Blunt are immune. Together, they are about as perfect as an on-screen couple can be.

I don't remember when I started thinking like this about movies, but it hits me more and more over the last couple years. I'm sitting there enjoying a movie -- in this case thinking should I go 3.5 stars or bust out 4? -- and I begin to wonder....how are they going to wrap this up? How will this movie end?  The build-up is near perfect, but the end reveal disappoints in a big way. I suspect this movie didn't have the balls to do a downer ending (I'm talking rrrrrrrrreal downer of an ending), but the route they went felt like a cop-out to me.  It is just too simplistic with the background and explanation we've been offered in the past.  It isn't a movie killer, but it does take it down a notch overall.  It is too contrite, too happy.

It is hard to judge here the members of the Adjustment Bureau because we know little to nothing about them, even in the end when everything has been resolved more or less.  Mad Men star John Slattery plays Richardson, Terence Stamp is Thompson, the long-time vet of the Bureau called in to deal with the Norris case, and Anthony Mackie is Harry, Norris' personal agent/angel/bodyguard/overseeer. Mackie is the best of the group as Harry, someone who is torn by what he's been taught to do and done for years with his beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.  Mackie is an actor destined for stardom it seems, and this is another strong part for the 33-year old actor. Also watch for Michael Kelly as Charlie, David's friend, co-worker and campaign manager.

I go back and forth with movies like this. Do I want everything explained to me? A little bit. The explanation almost always disappoints though, letting you down because it doesn't make any sense.  The other end of the spectrum can be as equally frustrating when a movie leaves it up to the viewer to figure things out for themselves.  Adjustment Bureau falls in the middle, doing a little of both. Some questions are answered, others are not. I guess that's the best we're going to get.  A really good movie that could have been great with a few tweaks, especially that ending.

The Adjustment Bureau <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Screaming Eagles

Thanks to the Stephen Ambrose book and the Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks produced miniseries Band of Brothers, the 101st Airborne Division has become synonymous with WWII.  History buffs and casual fans alike are aware of the famous division that played such a large role in the European theater following the D-Day invasion all the way until the end of the war. The miniseries is one of the all-time greats, and one that any history fan will enjoy.  It is of course not the only story of the division out there, just the most well known.

Countless WWII stories set in the European theater of war have mentioned the division and their exploits, like Battleground, Saving Private Ryan, and The Longest Day.  Some are just glancing encounters as these paratroopers navigate through the hell of the Normandy invasion or some six months later at the siege at Bastogne.  Wherever it is set though and whatever the situation, it's hard not to appreciate their acts of bravery and courage of these men.  A little movie from 1956 was one of the first to tell their story, its title dedicated to the division's nickname, Screaming Eagles. 

It is early June 1944, and Privates Mason (Tom Tryon) and Corliss (Martin Milner) arrive at their new unit at a camp in England, D Company from a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division. Standoffish from the get-go, the always ready to fight Mason quickly alienates himself from his squad mates.  The rest of the squad wants him transferred, but the platoon commander, Lt. Pauling (Jan Merlin), wants to do otherwise. He knows the invasion of Europe is coming soon, and that every man will be needed. Pauling convinces the men to give Mason another chance and tells the troublesome private to get in line.  Then the orders come through, the 101st will be dropped inland of Normandy, Pauling's platoon receiving an assignment to hold a key bridge along the road to the beach. Their past personal problems aside, Mason and the platoon gear up for the coming fight.

I've mentioned before that a movie can be generally forgotten over the years. A good clue is to look at a movie's IMDB page. Click on the left where a typical movie is chock full of little tidbits about the movie, anything ranging from quotes to cast to business and trivia.  'Screaming' has little to nothing. It is a small budget, B-movie from director Charles F. Haas that clocks in at just 79 minutes. My first reaction was that it was a TV show from the 1950s edited into a movie that could have been released in theaters. Nope, just a small movie.  It certainly has the look of a TV show, but what are you going to do? There's nothing really special about the movie, but it's good enough. Ringing endorsement if there ever was one, huh?

Reading about this movie when it popped up on TCM's schedule, I was intrigued by the cast. There weren't big names, but there were a lot of recognizable names. Some of these names didn't even ring a bell, but as I look through their filmography, I recognize quite a lot of them from the other movies they starred in (if nothing else).  Tryon had a quick window in the late 1950s and early 1960s where he was in movies and TV, starring here as troublemaker Pvt. Mason.  He's somewhat wooden, and his character motivations as to why he's such an ass are never really explained. Merlin is especially good as Lt. Pauling, the officer just trying to keep his men together as the well-trained unit they are. Other members of the platoon include Mark Damon and Robert Blake (but look quick or you'll miss them), Pat Conway, Paul Burke, Alvy Moore, and Joe Di Reda.

With a movie that isn't even 90 minutes long though, an obvious problem occurs.  An introductory title card explains this is the story of 15 men and their exploits in WWII.  Okay, fair enough, a story about 15 paratroopers.  Most of them are never identified though....until after they're dead.  Another soldier states "Oh, they got Hernandez" and that's it.  I realize with a 79-minute B-movie that character development and fleshing out all the roles isn't the most important thing, but even a token effort would have been appreciated. Lt. Pauling reciting off the names of the killed members of the platoon would have registered a little bit then.

For a pretty straightforward war story, I enjoyed 'Screaming' once the paratroopers actually dropped into Normandy.  One officer is killed almost immediately, and Lt. Pauling is blinded when a gun goes off in his eyes. Mason is placed in charge of being his watchdog, guiding the officer wherever they go. The story again is not developed much there, but it gives Mason a chance to amount to something, to see that this doesn't have to be a one-man war. He can't just look out for himself. He has to watch out for the men around him too.  I liked the movie though, and if you can catch it again on TCM's schedule, it's worth a watch.

Screaming Eagles (1956): ** 1/2 /**** 

Paratrooper

Is there anything more ridiculous that a person can do than jump out of a plane with a parachute? I say this as someone who would like to sky-dive at some point in my life, knowing the inherent and fairly obvious consequences that could result from said experience. Now let's add something to the equation. What about jumping out of a plane and landing somewhere where thousands of men with guns would like nothing more than to kill you?  Okay, so maybe not my best lead ever, but I thought it was good enough for a movie appropriately titled Paratrooper, released in 1953.

This British war flick was aired recently as part of TCM's Memorial Day programming (like many of my recent reviews), and was one I'd never heard of before stumbling across it on their website. The story sounded a lot like a book I was given as a little kid by my Dad, a book he had read as a kid about a commando raid in France trying to knock out a German radar station. As is the case with this movie, it was appropriately named 'Radar Commandos.' The story sounded interesting enough, the talent behind the camera impressive, and the cast had a couple names I'll always check out.

It's 1940 in England, and American volunteer via Canada, McKendrick (Alan Ladd) volunteers to be part of a newly formed unit of paratroopers. He doesn't tell anyone, but he has an aviation background, and more than that, experience with parachuting out of a plane. Joining the completely volunteer unit, McKendrick just wants to blend in and do his job like all the other volunteers. His superiors quickly see his talent and his ability to lead, but he wants nothing to do with a promotion. The training revs up as the paratroopers practice jumping out of planes. Their orders are coming though as the fighting intensifies against the Germans. First up on their list is a German radar station in France, but that's just the start. A heavily guarded German airfield also awaits them.

This is a lot like so many movies I've seen over the years. It's not bad mostly because the talent involved on both sides of the camera just wouldn't allow a truly bad movie.  On the other hand, it's not very good either. It is dull at times -- surprising considering the subject matter -- and so cliche-ridden in other segments that the story struggles to get off the ground. Director Terence Young would go on to direct three of the best James Bond films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball), but this WWII venture doesn't have the same urgency or even a fraction of the entertainment value. Cliches are one thing though -- I love cliches, just about all of them -- but Paratrooper is undone by some just bizarre moments that seem out of place, some things I may be reading too much into and others that are just bad.

In an effort to save some money (I'm assuming), some green screen shots are used so painfully obvious and out of place that they're laughable. Ladd and fellow cast members stand close to the camera while footage of paratroopers training or tanks driving by is shown behind them. Ladd's McKendrick is also given a love interest...sort of... who really wants nothing to do with him but ends up falling for him because gosh darnit, he's just a good guy. Ladd has little chemistry with 22-year old Susan Stephen who was 18 years younger than him so that's always nice. Then there's Stanley Baker, typically a sure thing, playing a jump instructor. His acting isn't in question here...just his voice. He is dubbed so bizarrely that every time he speaks it just sounds odd. Just weird little things that pepper throughout the movie.

A saving grace in even a bad movie can be the casting, and above all else that's what drew me into Paratrooper. I was disappointed then because the script doesn't allow for much in the way of actualy character development. The more I see of Alan Ladd I lean toward thinking of him as a one-note actor. He's so calm, so even-keeled that his characters could be accused of being asleep. Ladd rarely shows emotion, and here his character's internal struggles and demons come across as a minor problem as opposed to something that's tearing him up. Leo Genn is your prototypical cold British officer, calculating and good at what he does but not particulary interesting. Harry Andrews gets to yell and scream as the unit's platoon sergeant, and Baker makes a quick appearance as the jump instructor. I recognize a bunch of other faces, English actors who always dotted these movies as background players, but like the leads, they don't make much of an impression.

Through all the tedium in the story, there are some solid moments. The attack on the radar station is well-handled if a little chaotic. I can't decide if that was the intention or just a by-product of some lazy filmmaking, but it's a cool sequence. The same goes for the raid at the German airfield in North Africa. The violence isn't gratuitious, but it is pretty graphic for a movie released in 1953 including a couple uses of blood squibs.  Unfortunately by the time these action sequences come around, I was bored with the movie, its story and its characters. Average in every way, but there are worse options to kill 90 minutes.

Paratrooper (1953): **/****

Ashes and Diamonds

It's easy enough to get wrapped up in Hollywood and all the American-made movies that saturate the market.  They're all around us, and you can't help but pay attention, but one of the best things I've come to realize as a movie fan is that there are hundreds and thousands of movies made outside the United States worth watching. It sounds so simple, but the perception among so many studios is that us slow, dumb Americans only enjoy movies with sex and violence. Therefore, we don't always see all the amazing movies out there. Over the last couple of weeks thanks to TCM's Sunday Night Imports programming, I've been able to catch up with an amazing trilogy of WWII movies from Polish director Andrzej Wajda, concluding most recently with 1958's Ashes and Diamonds.

Where America had James Dean before his tragic death at 24 years old in 1955, Poland had star Zbigniew Cybulski, a young actor who rose to fame with his starring role in Wajda's trilogy-concluding WWII story. For starters, there is a physical resemblance between the two young actors. Cybulski was slim, had a similar hairstyle, and his style had this casual cool quality to it, not to mention some seriously badass sunglasses. More than that, he played similar roles; rebels that did not go along with the societal norms, ratcheted up even more in a story set in the closing days of WWII.  Above all else though, Cybulski died at a young age (39 years old to Dean's 24 years), adding to the appeal and interest in a star who was taken well before his time. This was the first movie I've seen with him, and if it was any indication of his talent, he's got a fan in me.

A member of the Polish resistance fighting the Communist government in May 1945, Maciek (Cybulski) and fellow freedom fighter, Andrzej (Adam Pawlikowski), are part of an ambush gone wrong. Their target was a Polish communist, Szczuka (Waclaw Zastrzezynski) who's returned to Poland after years in the Soviet Union. He wasn't in the car he was supposed to be though, and Maciek and Andrzej end up killing two innocent workers. Just hours later though with pressure from their superiors to finish the job, Maciek finds out that Szczuka is staying in a hotel in the city. Andrzej gives him his orders. They have to leave town by the next day, and the Communist leader is only there for a short time, giving him a small window of opportunity to get the job done. Maciek meets a waitress, Krystyna (Ewa Krzyzewska), as he waits and begins to question the point of all this killing. What does it accomplish? What does it say about him? Can he go through with it?

A few months ago, I had not even heard of Wajda or his movies, but am I ever glad I stumbled across his name in an anthology of must-see war movies.  The trilogy is unlike any other grouping of war movies I've ever seen.  'Ashes' is a fitting end as probably the most polished and stylized of the three.  Like the others, Wajda films in black and white, taking advantage of some incredible lighting situations, playing with darkness, light and shadow to bring his story to life.  The story, the situation, the characters, those are still the main focus. Setting his story on May 8, 1945 certainly adds a different element to the story. Germany has surrendered, but in Poland the fight is just beginning as many Poles refuse to go along with their Communist rulers.

Like the other two movies in the trilogy, 'Ashes' has an ability to drop you into these war-time situations and immediately sympathize and feel for these characters.  Cybulski's Maciek could be Dean ripped straight out of Rebel Without a Cause, physically and emotionally.  In a movie where I'm sure this wasn't the original intent, Maciek is an incredibly cool if tragic character.  A veteran and survivor of the Warsaw Uprising, he's been part of the Home Army for years, killing and fighting in a hopeless fight for Polish freedom. With no end in sight of fighting anytime soon, Maciek keeps on fighting, the killing, the death, the blood seemingly not taking an effect on him.  He takes on the tasks as they come, but each man has his limit. There's only so much he can take, and as the order comes through again, Maciek decides that maybe this is enough.

His issue comes after he met Krystyna, a beautiful young waitress.  Maciek immediately is attracted to her, but it quickly turns into something else with a genuine emotional connection.  This is where the character is taken to a higher, better level, catapulting him into the realm of the tragic character. He went along for so long fighting because he knows nothing better. Now with this girl, he sees a future, something better. What about his duty though? A confrontation with Andrzej throws his conscience into turmoil. What should he do? He did agree to kill this man, but what will one more death mean in the grand scheme of things?  Knowing this character and his beliefs and convictions, you know how it will end. In a world where there is no black or white -- just shades of gray -- there are no easy decisions, and the cost may be too much in the end. Cybulski does an incredible job with this character.

My only complaint with this final installment in Wajda's trilogy (other than the Polish setting in WWII there's no unifying link) is that it drifts a little more than the previous two films.  Both 'A Generation' and 'Kanal'  are right around 90 minutes long, incredibly streamlined movies that don't depart from their focus, that final message. Surprisingly, 'Ashes' does take little detours here and there, especially some middle scenes with Maciek and Andrzej's source in the Mayor's office (Bogumil Kobiela) and a drunken reporter (Stanislaw Milski) attending the mayor's dinner banquet. Those scenes tend to drag a little, and while they're not unnecessary, it takes the story away from Maciek and his situation which I found infinitely more interesting. Minor complaint, I can't always be positive now, can I?

As I know I mentioned in my reviews of Wajda's other two movies in the trilogy, I love his brutal honesty, his realistic portrayals of the waste and dumb luck in war. How is that one person can make it through an entire war unscathed? Another person can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a bullet finds them, ending their life in the blink of an eye. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS 'Ashes' follows suit with the previous two movies. Maciek ends up completing his mission, killing the Communist leader in one of the most stunningly gorgeous shots I've ever seen.  He's killed the next day though when freedom is within reach as he accidentally bumps into three soldiers who see he's carrying a gun. Mortally wounded, he escapes, struggling through a garbage dump, finally collapsing in a trash heap as he bleeds out. This is no glamorous death. It's just death. An incredible ending in its honesty and realism. END OF SPOILERS

If you can find Wajda's Polish WWII trilogy, I can't recommend these three movies enough. A Generation is the weakest of the three, but that's not saying much. It's better than 95% of the other war movies much more readily available on DVD.  Kanal is the best of the three, but 'Ashes' isn't far behind.  Read it however you want, but they're just good movies. Snobs who don't want to see subtitled foreign movies are missing out. Movie fans -- any movie fan at all -- needs to see these movies.

Ashes and Diamonds <---TCM clips (1958): *** 1/2 /****